Posted on 05/13/2011 8:27:14 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican told Catholic bishops around the world on Friday they had to obey a papal order allowing priests to say the old-style Latin mass for traditionalist Catholics, whether they liked it or not.
The Vatican issued an "instruction" to bishops as a follow-up to a 2007 papal decree authorizing the wider adoption of the Latin Mass, which was in universal use before the 1962-1965 Vatican Council introduced masses in local languages.
...The five-page instruction from the Vatican's doctrinal department, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made it clear that the pope wants bishops to follow his orders.
...While couched in polite, institutional language, the instruction said local parishes had to insert a Latin mass into their liturgical schedules if tradionalist faithful wanted it.
...A Vatican official said recently that only a third of the world's bishops responded to a Vatican questionnaire and that prejudice against the old mass was "still widespread."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Says who?
Do you consider yourself qualified to tell other folks "what the Bible says"?
“Worse (for you interpretation of things): Latin is the native language of the western Church. “
And who speaks it today? You are conducting mass for the people of today?
Yes, I can read.
“What may I ask, would be the purpose in that case, of saying it in Latin at all?”
Latin is the native language of the Church. I learned Latin as a child going to Mass, only to learn the grammar and add to vocabulary in high school.
Translation can lose a lot and that goes for the prayers also. What in English sounds off, in Latin, the original writing is beautiful and conveys the orginal intent of worship and piety.
Do a study on “tongues”
Pretty much anybody who assists at Latin Mass on a semi-regular basis. I understand enough to understand Latin Mass. I'm neither particularly well versed in Latin, nor astonishingly intelligent.
I have asked you a few questions. Please answer them.
The old testament was written in Hebrew, the new testament was written in Greek. Why bother with a Latin translation.
Me: Do you consider yourself qualified to tell other folks “what the Bible says”?
Thee: Yes, I can read.
Pope Benedict can read, too. So can I (although poorly). What’s a poor dummy like me to do? To whom (of the folks who consider themselves qualified to lecture me on “what the Bible says”) should I listen?
Do you consider yourself qualified to tell other folks “what the Bible says”?
Yes, of course. I quoted scripture right out of the bible itself. Did you not read it? It was in plain English and quite to the point. Not a lot of room for nuance.
“More bible, less catechism”
The catechism is an exposition of Scripture.
Each point of the catechism is footnoted to the Scripture passage, book, letter, psalm, etc that it deals with and the expositions of the early Fathers and of the Apostles and Sacred Tradition.
The Catechism is not an isolated book. It is more a reference book that ties to the Scriptures.
Do we need to read the bible? Absolutely.
Maybe I already have. What now ... keep studying until I agree with you, then stop?
Who made your interpretation normative?
This reminds me of the Milwaukee Vote Counting Technique.
“The old testament was written in Hebrew, the new testament was written in Greek. Why bother with a Latin translation.”
Because the entire ancient world and into the Renaissance spoke Latin to converse between countries and to communicate in writing.
There was no modern English or Germanic or French or Spanish.
There was no modern language.
Sure ... anybody can quote Scripture. Even the Devil itself.
Did you not read it?
I actually did ... and not for the first time.
It was in plain English and quite to the point.
Yet you offered your opinion of what it meant. Why did you waste time doing so, if you really think that it's "quite to the point"?
Very strange ...
BTW, do you know in what language preaching and proclamation of the Word occur during a Latin Mass?
Due to my deteriorating hearing, an elderly priest and a poor church PA system I often can not aurally understand either the Latin or English portions of the Mass. So am I somehow in violation of Scripture?
I wonder: In what language do these folks suppose the Church should write her Liturgy and teaching?
The argument about language is poorly presented in my humble opinion. In the first three centuries, the Gospel and many old testament books were translated into well over a hundred languages. As Christ triumphed in the universal growth of Christendom, for which the oldest Churches of east and west deserve all the credit, one of the tools utilized to spread the Word and Christ's church as a small “c” catholic and universal church was the universal language of the educated reader: Latin and hence the Vulgate.
We would all be wise to bless that history of the instruction of Christ to “go forth...”.
Sure claims can be made that clergy (coming from sinful mankind) used the Latin instead of the local languages to keep mystery and superiority. Likewise it is certainly true that this usage of the Vulgate was to spread the faith. That argument can be held in a civil debate of history.
Likewise, there are plenty of issues with the KJV being the alpha and omega of translations that don't go along with your insistance upon no-translation being required and many Protestants that look with reverence on the KJV take offense when it is belittled by others in a debate on this forum that doesn't stick to strick historical context.
What cannot be argued is that the reforms of the leftists high-jacking the Second Vatican Council's efforts are being set right within the Roman church by Pope Benedict and I am a non RC that says, "Bravo" to "God's Rotwiller" (as the left terms Ratzinger) and celebrates his election and efforts for my brothers in Christ in that denomination. This tread is about a small part of that effort to turn back the leftist non-orthodox.
The are plenty of religious forums across the Internet where Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Anglicans, Calvinists and all the many denominations can have arguments about the details for true and false, correct and incorrect, valid and invalid expression and exercise of Christianity. We belittle our fellowship as conservatives on this forum however, if we don't, at a minimum, acknowledge that HERE we all are at least (small “o”) orthodox in our belief.
To do less minimizes our earthly efforts for our nation's salvation which, of course, are always subordinate to our Heavenly Salvation.
You are a smart and experienced poster. Give your fellow posters the same credit and show Christ's love from your heart as I know you can. Save the denominational one-ups-manship for other religious debate forums. We're busy saving the USA.
If the population doesn't speak gibberish, French, or Latin, they aren't going to hear understand the gospel message are they?
The homily is given in English, and the scripture readings are re-read in English at that time. And again, everything is in the book for anyone who is literate to read.
Again, thank you.
Instruction may not be the purpose of the Liturgy, but the Liturgy is instructive. Much of our teaching (doctrine, dogma) is stated or referenced in it. Poor official translations and really bad personal paraphrases can distort or even invert the meaning of the Liturgy and the doctrines it presents. The current efforts on the part of BXVI to provide an accurate English translation of the Liturgy, and to restore the Latin usage are aimed (among other things) at presenting our beliefs correctly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.